Fermilab, aglow in the night, is a symbol of national pride and a face of U.S. particle physics. However, this lab, like a last old lion, is on the verge of death due to drastic underfunding. (Source: Fred Ullrich/Fermilab )

Fermi earns a stay-of-execution thanks in part to a generous anonymous philanthropist

Particle physics is one of the most intriguing scientific fields, probing the nature of the very makeup of the universe itself. However, over the last half decade, due to the growing economic crisis and various items such as war funding taking precedence in government budgets, the budget to help the U.S. stay leaders in the field of particle physics has been slipping.

The U.S. currently is down to only one remaining particle physics lab, the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab) in Batavia, Illinois, associated with the University of Chicago and the lab was looking to be on the way out. It had started in February rolling furlough program that slashed already scarce employee pay by 12.5 percent and forced them to take periodic unpaid leave.

Now an anonymous donor has stepped in and donated $5M USD to the University of Chicago to try to alleviate these cuts and keep the lab open. Even with the extremely generous donation the lab is still in trouble. It plans to lay off 140 employees now, though it would have been an even larger number before the donation. The donation has allowed the lab to offer voluntary layoffs before the involuntary ones start.

Fermilab Director Piermaria Oddone spoke of the gift stating, "This is very unusual. It's not a building that carries a name. It's really a commitment to science and the nation and in particular to particle physics as a long-range important undertaking for our nation."

The good news has somewhat buoyed the sunken spirits of physicists at the lab. Says Consolato Gattuso, an engineering physicist at the lab, "This is definitely a weight that has been lifted. It gives us some light at the end of the tunnel."

Throughout the last five years, FermiLab's budget has been falling. The U.S. Congress's last minute budget for 2008 cut FermiLab funding from $372 million requested by the Department of Energy (DOE) to $320 million, $22 million less than the lab had received in 2007. The lab went into a state of crisis, forcing employees to take one week off unpaid every other month and work shorter hours. Further, 200 of the lab's 1950 employees were scheduled to be cut.

The U.S. is in a particle physics competition of sorts with Europe to find the legendary Higgs boson particle first. The cuts will allow Fermi's Tevatron Collider to stay operational, and continue the search. Researchers remain optimistic that Fermi may find the particle before Europe's CERN lab turns on its more powerful Large Hadron Collider this summer.

Legally, Fermilab cannot officially accept the gift, but it will allow the University of Chicago to contract employees to work in the lab. Over 50 employees have already left the lab, allowing it to scrape $1M USD in savings.

This is not the first time in recent years that the Congress has chronically underfunded the Department of Energy's physics research labs. In 2006, Congress gave the Brookhaven National Laboratory in Upton, New York so little money that it would have to shut down its Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider. James Simons, a theoretical physicist and billionaire hedge-fund guru saved the Collider with a gift of $13M USD.

The officials at Fermi are extremely grateful for a gift, but fear it’s only prolonging the inevitable. Brendan Casey, a Fermilab particle physicist states, "The grain of salt is that it really does nothing to change the uncertainty with regard to the future. So there's some relief, but the underlying tension is still there."

The U.S. government may be forced to reevaluate its spending priorities as more experimental physics labs and other science programs go under and U.S. leadership in the sciences slips. This would truly be an unfortunate loss for the country, most would agree.

Comments

Threshold

Username

Password

remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

In Saddam 20 years in power I think the people felt alot safer before we come in. This war have killed over 100000 Iraq. Sorry but Saddam was bad dictor, but at aleast he was a much more stablizing force then we are. And Iraq's dont want us there.

Hitler would have been more "stabilizing" to the world if he conquered it also.

Most of the conflicts since WWII would have been avoided.

Your statement is ridiculous. And the fact that you have time to BS around in forums (and complain about the governement( means that you have a pretty damn good life thanks to the hundreds of thousands of Americans that have died for your right to float through life and complain about the price of freedom not being free. Please think about it.

Comparing Saddam and Hitler is the ridiculous statement here. One was attempting to conquer the world, and the other hadn't done anything in over a decade and was pretty clearly incapable of threatening us.

Not that he was a good guy, or anything. If he had the power for all I know he could have ended up being worse than Hitler. But claiming he had the same destabilizing ability Hitler did is utter nonsense.

There have been polls which said flat out that the Iraqi people preferred life under Saddam Hussein than what came after, mostly because they had a much lower chance of being kidnapped by criminals or blown up by terrorists.

However, I believe those polls came at the height of violence and I haven't heard of any since the surge started to calm things down, so it may not be accurate anymore.

"at least fifty thousand rural Kurds ... died in Anfal alone, and very possibly the real figure was twice that number ... All told, the total number of Kurds killed over the decade since the Barzani men were taken from their homes is well into six figures."http://www.gendercide.org/case_anfal.html

"The jaws of power are always open to devour, and her arm is always stretched out, if possible, to destroy the freedom of thinking, speaking, and writing." - John Adams

"If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." - Winston Churchill

Admittedly, I had that view back in 2003/2004, but now view it as a brilliant positioning and tremendous foresight on the US government. With Russia and Venezula potentially scaling back oil and rumors of the Saudi's running out, Uncle Sam needed to secure the second largest oil source by any means possible.

When McCain said we will be there for another 100 years, it's the truth... but only because thats when the oil will run out.

That sums up your views well. We did not take over Iraq. We are leaving whenever the Iraqi government asks us to.

McCain said

quote: Last month, at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire, a crowd member asked McCain about a Bush statement that troops could stay in Iraq for 50 years."Maybe 100," McCain replied. "As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it's fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day."

Another way to think of it is our current "occupation" of Japan or Germany.

I don't remember the Iraq government inviting us. If it were not about oil, then why do we have profit sharing agreements with Iraq? Good contrasting argument would be is why doesn't the US occupy Dafur.

With Japan and Germany, they attacked other countries. After winning the war, the Allies occupied each country. When did Iraq attack us? Why does the US have military installations in Saudia Arabia if we have never been attacked by them either?

I didn't say a prerequisite was world domination, just comparing that we have troops in other countries for many years, much like we might end up with in Iraq. If you you don't believe the US is a positive influence and a beacon in the world, then you don't appreciate all the US has accomplished.

Notice I didn't say America is perfect, but our ideals and the American way (i.e. hard work = opportunity to advance) vs socialism and communism (entitlement and equal distribution regardless of skills and drive - except for the ruling class) is what makes people believe in America.

But some Americans become complacent too quickly, and don't appreciate what the generations before us went through. And they didn't do it so the government could take care of our every need from cradle to grave.

Iraq also attacked Iran, as well as our allies Kuwait and Israel. The attack on Kuwait alone was enough to justify invasion, as Iraq never acceded to the terms of the original armistice it signed.

> "If it were not about oil, then why do we have profit sharing agreements with Iraq?"

If it were simply about oil, why does the US not attack Venezuela, Nigeria, Oman, Mexico, or any of the other dozens of nations which export oil? If it were about oil, why does the US allow Iraq to sell its oil on the open market (most of which goes to other nations) rather than simply keeping it for itself?

But the US never invaded Baghdad until 2003 with those events occuring in the 80's and 90's.

It's just easier to occupy countries under the guise of chasing "terrorists" than flat out invading Venezuela or Nigeria. If we were to attack Venezuela, Iran has already pleged to start war with us. Iraq was just low hanging fruit. Chavez has already voiced his concern stating the US will invade.

Actually, there are profit sharing agreements in place where the US in generating income. A hot political topic is the increased revenue on the open market, but the US govt is still rebuilding infrastructure with US dollars.

Just because Chavez says he's afraid that the US will invade Venezuela doesn't mean there is even a grain of truth to it. Chavez will say anything to make us look bad. Accepting him as a valid source of info loses you credibility, since neither you nor Chavez have any actual evidence that the US has even thought about invading Venezuela.

Aside from Pat Retardson, I haven't heard anybody calling for Chavez's assassination. Haven't heard word one about that from our gov't. And even if an assassination were being considered, that's still a far cry from invasion.

Now, if you have some credible sources you could cite, then this Venezuelan invasion business might possibly be believed.

quote: Why does the US have military installations in Saudia Arabia if we have never been attacked by them either?

Uh because the Saudi's want us there. We offer them protection. They offer us oil. At least that was the arrangement. Now I'm for us pulling our troops out considering they're not living up to their end of the bargain.

quote: Why does the US have military installations in Saudia Arabia if we have never been attacked by them either?

Saudi's asked us to be there. How else could we have gotten there? Did we sneak the bases across the border in the middle of the night then plant a flag and tell everyone this is our land now? Your arguments are atypical of a person that CANNOT think for themselves and is driven by fear.

Agreed... my logic and rational ARE atypical. Read my lead off post; I think our country setting up camp in Iraq was brilliant. However, I cannot claim to have always view it that way, but only as certain geopolitical events have happened it completely logical.